To Infinity and Beyond - Becoming a Better DopeyBadger (Comments Welcome)

[DopeyBadger]

Alright readers (posters and lurkers alike), I've got a question for you!

My coworker and I were discussing Boston Qualifying Times today. She was excited to turn 45 soon and increase her BQ time to 3:55. I am at 3:05 for the next few years until I'm 35 on race day. She stated that it was rough for me to have a BQ of 3:05 because that's so fast. And I posed that since BQs are age and gender specific, was my time of 3:05 really that different than her 3:55? Whose time was harder to accomplish given our age/gender?

So, I did the following. I used the BQ times as of right now and looked at the 2014 Chicago Marathon results. I figured out how many people in each division ran a BQ time, and then divided it by the total number of people in each division. Thus, it gave me a percentage of BQ qualifying times per division. So the graph and the data....



x-axis equals age
y-axis equals % of finish times that were BQ
blue bar is male
pink bar is female
lines represent merely the BQ times required and location on graph has zero correlation to the height of the bars



So the question to you is two-fold:

1) What do you interpret from this data?
2) If I were to use a different marathon (say 2014 Grandma's marathon) based on your conclusions in question 1, what would you anticipate would be the same in the Grandma results? And what would you anticipate could be different?

I have my ideas, but I want to see whether any of you would like to share yours first. Set GO!

 

[ZellyB]

This smells suspiciously like math...

1) Still my conclusion would be that as a participant ages and BQ time goes up it becomes "easier" or more likely that an individual will achieve a BQ. Interestingly for both men and women there's not really a linear progression but rather a jump in improvement for making a BQ at age 45-49 which then seems to mostly plateau until you die. Although statistically speaking once you get over age 65 or so, the n is probably too small to draw too many statistically valid conclusions.

2) Hmmm not sure what I would anticipate to be different with Grandma's results.

 

[cburnett11]

Based on this data, I'd assume Grandma doesn't run in her own marathon very often...

But seriously the most interesting thing in this data to me is the number of participants in each group.

Most participants...

1. 25-29 female (never would've thought)
2. 30-34 male
3. 40-44 male
4. 35-39 male (actually all of these male groups are essentially the same size)

 

[DopeyBadger]

Alright, looks like anyone who wanted to answer did. Now how does your conclusions compare to the following:

 

[dis_or_dat]

Asked my DH about this a while back since he was a researcher for a bit of time, but forgot to write his response - similar thoughts as @ZellyB. He also posits that there may be a larger proportion of runners for fun with the younger people (such as Bay to Breakers) than with us older folks.

 

[dis_or_dat]

General training question:
I've been reading some criticisms about Hansons recovery for strength and many say that it goes too long (800 m) and that recovery should be about 1 min since the lactic acid levels don't change much and then you'd stress the system again. I believe that's more part of the Jack Daniel's method. I think my legs would fall off. What are your thoughts?

 

[opusone]

General training question:
I've been reading some criticisms about Hansons recovery for strength and many say that it goes too long (800 m) and that recovery should be about 1 min since the lactic acid levels don't change much and then you'd stress the system again. I believe that's more part of the Jack Daniel's method. I think my legs would fall off. What are your thoughts?

I'm interested to see what @DopeyBadger has to say as well, but I've actually thought about this before (during my first Hansons half marathon cycle), and my justification was that, although the recovery interval is longer with Hansons, the total miles at lactate threshold pace is more, so it works out in the wash. Jack Daniels will only do about 3-4 miles at lactate threshold and Hansons does 6 miles during the strength workouts.

 

[DopeyBadger]

General training question:
I've been reading some criticisms about Hansons recovery for strength and many say that it goes too long (800 m) and that recovery should be about 1 min since the lactic acid levels don't change much and then you'd stress the system again. I believe that's more part of the Jack Daniel's method. I think my legs would fall off. What are your thoughts?

I think both methods are appropriate and yield different benefits. I would agree that minimizing the recovery time between intervals would be harder and stress the system faster and possibly to a more significant degree. Allowing less recovery time between intervals would prevent the body from removing the steady state of fatigue buildup (I am unsure about 1 minute being a point at which lactic acid levels don't continue to increase, although I can check my Science of Running book tonight to see what Magness says). I'd be interested to see the following in the counter plan with 1 minute rest intervals:

1) What are the runs done prior and proceeding the matching strength workout?
2) What is the distance/duration covered in "strength" like paces? *Which @opusone looks like he has answered with 3-4 miles in JD's plan.
3) What is the proposed goal of the 1 minute resting interval run?
4) What is the total mileage of the LT pace compared to the rest of the training week?

I think the biggest takeaway is that the pace of the run should remain constant (i.e. strength pace or lactate threshold pace is the same for everyone relative to their fitness). However there are two variables that can be manipulated (per my memory of Magness discussion of LT runs):

1) Resting Interval between LT paces
2) Distance (or duration) at LT paces

In the end, the most important part to this workout is that you should be able to complete it. If you can run a 6 x 1 mile with 1 minute resting intervals, and your LT pace on the 6th interval is still within pace, then it is a successful LT run. If you can run 6 x 1 mile with 800m resting intervals, and your LT pace on the 6th interval is still within pace, then it is a successful LT run. If you can run 3 x 3 miles with 1 minute resting intervals, and your LT pace on the 3rd interval is still within pace, then it is a successful LT run. However, with all the being said, you need to be very careful with the LT workout because it sits on the cut line for most people between training and racing. If you push too hard to complete the LT pace workout, you might be able to complete it, but not comfortably and with too much effort for the desired benefits. Such that we get short bouts of desired race like running, yet we maintain the ability to complete the training prior and proceeding without ill effects.

The distance/duration of the LT runs should be dictated by the overall plan. More miles and time spent training means more miles and time spent training at harder paces. Thus, for someone training for a marathon at 40 mpw vs 80 mpw they need not necessarily both complete the same LT workout. One might do 6 x 1 mile and then other 9 x 1 mile. I believe this goes back to the concept of 80% Easy and 20% Hard.

@opusone and I have had the discussion before about Hansons "Strength" workouts. It's funny that the marathon and half marathon plans have the same distance/duration yet the HM plan is HM pace - 10 seconds and the M pace is M pace - 10 seconds. Well physiologically these aren't the same, so how can they be called the same thing. I think it goes to the plans in the book way to create a standard plan. When completing the workout in the HM plan I'd argue you're slightly less fatigued than in the case of the M plan. So it begs the question, can two workouts with differing paces yield the same benefits because of the surrounding prior and proceeding workouts? I'm not 100% sold on this idea.

 

[DopeyBadger]

Alright, so I had 1.5 hours to think about it (yea for running!). And this is what I came up with.



This is a ROUGH and not completely scientific drawing but closely resembles what I believe is going on. The green line is a 3 x 1 mile w/ 1 minute RI and the blue line a 6 x 1 mile with 400m RI. The red line is the Lactate Threshold and point of no return. When you go past the red line the body has accumulated more fatigue by product than it can clear. The dark blue dashed line is the golden zone of LT training (which I arbitrarily placed at 50%). These two workouts are done at the same pace (LT) with the same RI pace (just a different duration). As you can see the two lines are equal in the beginning. Then decrease at a similar rate. The green line goes up sooner because the 1 minute RI ends sooner than the 400m RI. The time spent above the 50% LT line is when the actual training benefits are received. It enables the body to train at 60 minute race pace, yet do it for almost as much as 60 minutes without pushing too far (i.e. what you should do in training vs what it's like to full out race). As you can see the green line after the 2nd interval stays above the 50% line and continues higher afterwards. The blue line continues to fall below the line with increased RI time. The green line workout ends earlier because it is a lesser total duration workout. The blue line continues to build. After the 6 intervals of the blue workout with increased RIs you see that it eventually reaches the same total time spent above the 50% line. At least that's what I am proposing hypothetically. One plan can have decreased RI duration because it has decreased # of intervals or total distance at LT pace.

Thoughts?

 

[opusone]

I think it makes sense, but you may only have five blue intervals in the graph. In any case, I think the idea is correct.

 

[DopeyBadger]

I think it makes sense, but you may only have five blue intervals in the graph. In any case, I think the idea is correct.

LOL! Nice catch! That's what I get for not proofing my drawing.

 

[FFigawi]

1) Still my conclusion would be that as a participant ages and BQ time goes up it becomes "easier" or more likely that an individual will achieve a BQ. Interestingly for both men and women there's not really a linear progression but rather a jump in improvement for making a BQ at age 45-49 which then seems to mostly plateau until you die. Although statistically speaking once you get over age 65 or so, the n is probably too small to draw too many statistically valid conclusions.

The large jump at 45-49 comes from the 10 minutes added on to the time from the previous age group instead of the normal 5.

 

[DopeyBadger]

The large jump at 45-49 comes from the 10 minutes added on to the time from the previous age group instead of the normal 5.

Very astute observation. Here is the 2014 Chicago Marathon, but with the 45-49, 50-54, and 55-59 capped at 10% of finishers which is roughly where the proceeding age groups are hovering around. I have altered the "BQ" time to represent the new cutoff proposed by this data to make the 45-59 age groups the same as the 44 and below. Interestingly, the data suggest the "BQ" time should have likely kept increasing in 5 minute increments and not 10 minute increments. Interesting!

 

[ZellyB]

The large jump at 45-49 comes from the 10 minutes added on to the time from the previous age group instead of the normal 5.

Aha! That makes sense then that there's a jump. I just wonder why the decision to make that a 10 minute progression. Does that mean at age 45 they expect the wheels to really fall off?

 

[opusone]

Aha! That makes sense then that there's a jump. I just wonder why the decision to make that a 10 minute progression. Does that mean at age 45 they expect the wheels to really fall off?

Using my extensive research based on a statistical population of one, the wheels do fall off at 45.

 

[FFigawi]

Aha! That makes sense then that there's a jump. I just wonder why the decision to make that a 10 minute progression. Does that mean at age 45 they expect the wheels to really fall off?

I'm better now than I was at 45, so I'd say they got it wrong. I think they fall off at y+something, where y is your current age. With good training and some luck, the "something" never reaches 0.

 

[roxymama]

My very scientific conclusion about people in the 30-34 division having such a small percentage of qualyifing times is: WEDDINGS & BABIES
Ain't nobody got time for a 20 mile long run with a 1 year at home. Or you think you can do that 16 miler until the baby has a poop-splosion at home and your day gets away from you.
The jump in females at 35-39 and the drop in males of same age = "I can't take it anymore...you watch the kids, I'm going running, this is my hobby now, give me some peace and quiet"
Then at 40-49 both partners say "thank god so and so can get themselves dressed in the morning and feed themselves, let's go on a run together."

My scientific data is based 100% on a single source of myself and my projected future self.

You may think I am joking, but I actually think there's probably some truth to the above

 

[opusone]

I'm better now than I was at 45, so I'd say they got it wrong. I think they fall off at y+something, where y is your current age. With good training and some luck, the "something" never reaches 0.

Some days my something in y+something feels like -1 or -2.

 

[Barca33Runner]

Alright, so I had 1.5 hours to think about it (yea for running!). And this is what I came up with.

View attachment 187975

This is a ROUGH and not completely scientific drawing but closely resembles what I believe is going on. The green line is a 3 x 1 mile w/ 1 minute RI and the blue line a 6 x 1 mile with 400m RI. The red line is the Lactate Threshold and point of no return. When you go past the red line the body has accumulated more fatigue by product than it can clear. The dark blue dashed line is the golden zone of LT training (which I arbitrarily placed at 50%). These two workouts are done at the same pace (LT) with the same RI pace (just a different duration). As you can see the two lines are equal in the beginning. Then decrease at a similar rate. The green line goes up sooner because the 1 minute RI ends sooner than the 400m RI. The time spent above the 50% LT line is when the actual training benefits are received. It enables the body to train at 60 minute race pace, yet do it for almost as much as 60 minutes without pushing too far (i.e. what you should do in training vs what it's like to full out race). As you can see the green line after the 2nd interval stays above the 50% line and continues higher afterwards. The blue line continues to fall below the line with increased RI time. The green line workout ends earlier because it is a lesser total duration workout. The blue line continues to build. After the 6 intervals of the blue workout with increased RIs you see that it eventually reaches the same total time spent above the 50% line. At least that's what I am proposing hypothetically. One plan can have decreased RI duration because it has decreased # of intervals or total distance at LT pace.

Thoughts?

Every time I look at your posts I'm reminded of my favorite line from Back to the Future, "You'll have to forgive the crudeness of this model. I didn't have time to paint it or build it to scale."

To possibly add something to the earlier discussion, I would guess that the reason for the smaller percentage of qualifiers at younger ages certainly has something to do with the more strenuous qualifying standard; but I would also think it has something to do with a higher number of "one off" runners. I think that many people in the older age groups are more likely to be aware of and chasing after the qualifying standard than many in the younger age groups. I'm 34 and I didn't even realize achieving a BQ time was a thing until about a year ago. Now it's become a bit of a long-term goal and if I ever enter a Marathon outside of Disney it will be with the express purpose of trying for a BQ. It would be interesting to know how many runners entered each race for the primary purpose of achieving a BQ; that could shed some light on why the percentages differ.

 

[FFigawi]

My very scientific conclusion about people in the 30-34 division having such a small percentage of qualyifing times is: WEDDINGS & BABIES
Ain't nobody got time for a 20 mile long run with a 1 year at home. Or you think you can do that 16 miler until the baby has a poop-splosion at home and your day gets away from you.
The jump in females at 35-39 and the drop in males of same age = "I can't take it anymore...you watch the kids, I'm going running, this is my hobby now, give me some peace and quiet"
Then at 40-49 both partners say "thank god so and so can get themselves dressed in the morning and feed themselves, let's go on a run together."

My scientific data is based 100% on a single source of myself and my projected future self.

You may think I am joking, but I actually think there's probably some truth to the above

Lack of BQ training time - one more reason not to have kids